12, December, 2017 – Blog #14
Women’s entrepreneurship in Canada
Women’s entrepreneurship continues to attract a great deal of attention and interest around the globe, given growing evidence of its economic and social impact. Initiatives such as the World Bank’s Women’s Entrepreneurship Financing Initiative (WE-FI), and Goldman Sachs’ 10,000 Women Program , are just two examples of a growing range of initiatives aimed at supporting and encouraging women-led business. Within this global context, Canada has emerged as a leader in women’s entrepreneurship, with the highest levels of early-stage activity (TEA), and the fifth highest established business ownership (EBO), amongst innovation-based economies.
The GEM Canada Report on Women’s Entrepreneurship highlights the strength of women’s entrepreneurship in Canada. Some highlights from the report:
- In 2016, 13.3% of Canadian women engaged in some form of early stage business activity, involving a business that was 3.5 years old or younger. This was up from 10.0% in 2014, and marked the highest rate of women’s TEA in 2016 amongst comparable innovation-based countries.
- Comparing Canada to other G7 countries—such as the U.K. (5.6%), Germany (3.1%), France (3.4%), and Italy (3.3%)—helps to underline the striking and high level of Canadian women’s participation in early-stage business.
- 6% of Canadian women were engaged in established businesses – those more than 3.5 years old – the fifth highest rate among comparable countries.
- Canadian women entrepreneurs are found across all age groups, though start-up rates are highest among women aged 25-44, while the majority of established business owners fall between 55-64 years of age.
- Women entrepreneurs are highly educated, with 12% having a graduate degree and 53.8% having a college or university degree.
- 82% of women indicated they were motivated to start a new business by opportunities, up notably from 70% in 2014, while only 14.5 % were motivated by necessity.
- Early stage women entrepreneurs are heavily involved in consumer services (54.4%), followed by business services (28.2%) and manufacturing (14.6%)
- For established businesses, the pattern is different and much more evenly distributed between consumer services (41.2%) and business services (41.2%). This greater presence in business services is important and encouraging, given that business services is typically a much more profitable sector, one that is increasingly recognized as driving innovation and business growth according to research on the ‘knowledge-intensive business service’ sector (KIBS). 19.2%)
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) is the world’s largest study of entrepreneurship, and typically covers 60-70 countries each year with a standardized methodology allowing ‘apples to apples’ comparison between countries. In Canada GEM reports are carried out by the Centre for Innovation Studies (THECIS) based in Calgary. This report was written by Karen Hughes a Professor at the Alberta School of Business and the Department of Sociology at the University of Alberta. The full report is available at https://tinyurl.com/y94gxqpn
3 November, 2017 – BLOG #13
By Guest – Richard Hawkins PhD, Professor, University of Calgary, and THECIS Senior Fellow
Let’s stop talking about innovation and start talking about what really matters
Following some 30 years of investigating “innovation” as a social and economic phenomenon, it is time for me to admit that I am getting fed up with this term. In the conversation about public policy for science, technology, industry, higher education or what have you, I fear that it is now so far adrift in a sea of mythology that has lost all touch with reality. Its usefulness began to be sabotaged long ago by waves of boffins, hucksters, on-the-make journalists, and political opportunists (aided and abetted by not a few like-minded academics), all of whom bought hook, line and sinker into a narrowly tech-centered vision of how economies work. But the term now obscures more than it illuminates. It is high time for us to reset the conversation. Because the existing one is taking us nowhere in terms of meeting the urgent new challenges Canada faces in sustaining prosperity in an increasingly uncertain world.
A good example of why we need to wipe the slate is the Innovation Supercluster Initiative (ISI) announced in the 2016 Federal Budget and now getting underway. “Innovation” appears 51 times in the terms of reference for this program. Except as part of the name of the sponsoring Ministry, it is hardly ever used once to refer to the same thing. So in a scant thirty pages we read about innovation, innovating, innovation superclusters, innovation eco-systems, innovation players, business-led innovation, innovation hotbeds, private-sector-led innovation, innovation partners, broader innovation ecosystems, gaps in the innovation eco-system, access to innovation, collaborations of innovation ecosystem players, dynamics of innovation ecosystems, innovation advantage, local innovation ecosystems, innovation assets, innovation spurs, innovation points of contact, innovation cluster regions, platform technology innovation, innovation funding environment … the list well exceeds my attention span. And when “innovation” is then linked up with science, R&D, IPR, skills and training, universities and so forth – well, calculating the national accounts in Roman numerals is easier than trying to make sense of this chaotic conceptual soup.
And here is the rub. The goal of the ISI is not really “innovation” at all. The goal is to stimulate sustainable growth and employment. The assumption is that this will follow from investments in something called innovation. But this is an extraordinarily simplistic view of how innovation might contribute to this outcome. To be sure, innovation affects jobs and growth. But the nature and extent of this contribution is notoriously difficult to isolate, map and measure. Doing so is reliant almost entirely on inferential proxies of mostly indirect and non-exclusive relationships. In less than careful hands they lead easily to completely wrong-headed conclusions.
But jobs and growth stem also from a host of other factors that are far easier to define, and that can be mapped, monitored and measured using far more robust and reliable economic and social indicators: factors like company formation, networking, human capital formation, technology adoption, spillovers, diversification and trade composition, to name but a few. Moreover, many of these factors are explicitly or implicitly contained in the ISI terms of reference already. So why focus a program on something you can’t even define, let alone assess, rather than on something you can?
Confronting this question is important because, in many respects, the ISI represents significant progress over the dreary parade of cookie-cutter programs that have over-populated the ‘innovation system’ real estate for so long, and to such minimal effect. The key difference is that the ISI is not just another set of tech-centered research subsidies, although it is not clear that the government fully realizes the implications of this difference. Rather, in the prosaic disguise of “clusters” (another slippery concept) – lurks what in most of our competitor jurisdictions would be immediately recognizable as industrial policy.
This is something we have seen practically none of in Canada since the heady days of Trudeau Père. For some reason the concept has become taboo – curious as we used to be rather good at it. But as I hear howls of protest swelling up, let me be clear that I am not referring here to PetroCan, or the Bricklin. I refer instead to the marshalling and coordination of public and private resources with the objective of stimulating the creation of new industries that are built specifically around the introduction of some significant new economic factor – like a new technology, process, practice or resource – that has the potential to transform how an economy creates wealth. This is not some radical new notion. Virtually no significant new wave of technology or industry has ever taken hold except through very close interaction between the public and private sectors. Get this wrong and you get the Great Newfoundland Cucumber Disaster. Get it right, and you sometimes get Silicon Valleys.
The positive thing about the ISI is that it is not just about inventing new stuff. Rather, it contains several specific mechanisms to build up key business infrastructures and networks, for example between public and private sector institutions, and between large and small companies. Unlike most existing policy measures, it appears to be focused on building industries rather than just supporting companies: essential if productive and competitive new domestic industries are to be sustained over the longer run.
OK, now for the downside. Such strategies only work if actively supported and financed in significant measure on very protracted time scales. Still no indication of much Canadian skin in that game. A budget of $950 million over five years divided up among five or more consortia is hardly going to incubate sustainable superclusters “at scale” as the bumf insists. This whole amount is roughly what a single company at the bottom end of the global R&D super-league would spend on that activity in any given year (Bombardier is currently Canada’s only placeholder in that league). It costs more than that to put a single new automobile model into production. What we have in the ISI is a small-scale demonstration project; a worthwhile experiment, not an economic strategy.
So how does this fit into my argument that we should kick “innovation” out of the policy discourse? Well, first recall that the main concern of governments is not science or technology, but growth and jobs. That is what gets them elected or defeated. The miscues set in when these outcomes become too directly associated with the production and exploitation of science and technology. For the simple reasons that these are among the most difficult factors to predict or control, and that many other more predictable and controllable factors also play into growth and jobs. It is worrisome that in his public statements about the ISI the Minister continues to see the technological elements of the program as the economic drivers, rather than the institutional, networking and business dimensions, which are far more critical for success.
And success is imperative. Currently, Canadian growth is leading the OECD region, and employment trends are positive. But these figures are not being driven by the emergence of dynamic new globally competitive domestic industries. They are driven by consumption, fueled by staggering amounts of consumer debt, and still underpinned largely by resource exports at very low levels of value added. So, the crucial issue for policy is not really creating growth and jobs as such, but sustaining them over the longer term.
Now consider how “innovation” became linked to this problem in the first place. It was introduced originally as a way of explaining economic development: how changes in the ways economic activities are conducted can yield new types and sources of economic value, over and above what would be produced with existing means. That in a nutshell is what our old friend Prof Schumpeter was on about with “creative destruction”. And this basic idea is still the only robust and empirically verifiable conceptual linkage between innovation and the economy. But all it predicts is the existence of a tractable process whereby new sources of wealth can be created through the introduction of new economic factors, and/or their combination with other factors, whether new or existing.
One would be hard pressed to explain growth unless one introduced some dynamic mechanism of this kind. Without it, all that happens is that existing wealth gets redistributed – until eventually the sources of that wealth are degraded or depleted. The problem is that this core observation eventually became associated almost exclusively with the invention and implementation of new technology.
Make no mistake, technical change is an enormously powerful phenomenon. The problems for economic policy start when the focus becomes technology itself, rather than what happens when some new factor combination is introduced. For growth and jobs to be created, it is never sufficient just to invent new stuff, or, for that matter, even to put it on the market. New technologies are commercialized every day and the dirty little secret is that few of them ever amount to anything. Individually, they create little if any wealth and sustain no employment. It is the cumulative long run dynamics of technical change at a whole economy level that does that.
So rather than focusing on producing more technology, or any other new factor, we should focus instead on how sustained economic value can be created both from transforming existing factor combinations, and from adding new ones. And to do this we must look more seriously at this mysterious phenomenon called entrepreneurship. Whether centered at an individual or organizational level, this refers to the very human-centered activity of fomenting change in the social, cultural, economic and even psychological environments in which life is lived, wants and needs are expressed, and the dynamics of supply and demand are played out.
Without entrepreneurship, no discovery will find expression in practice and no technology will have a chance to gain traction in the market. Indeed, it is typically entrepreneurship, and the new opportunities that it illuminates, that drives discovery, ingenuity and invention in the first place, not the other way around. And in the commercial arena, this depends not on the technology, or on any other factor, but on the business acumen of entrepreneurial firms, and on the milieu of institutions and rules in which they operate.
So really the task for governments in transforming their economies such that jobs and growth are not held hostage to declining industries is rather straightforward. First ensure that opportunities emerge for entrepreneurs to establish new kinds of economic activity in as many ways and in as many domains as possible. And then ensure that a fair number of them succeed – for example through many of the potentially industry-building measures contained in embryo in the ISI. But for the most part it simply involves ensuring that the rules governments make on many interconnected fronts allow for the kinds of new combinations discussed above to emerge, take root and prosper. And often this means getting out of the way, or not unduly favoring incumbent or legacy enterprises over new ones.
You can call this “innovation” if you want to, but you don’t have to. And there are huge downsides. First it is redundant. If the above scenario plays out, then, by definition, you have “innovated”. Job done – an innovation is an outcome, not an input. Second, it encourages governments to continue putting the cart before the horse: to divert attention from producing measurable results in terms of increased welfare, and to reinforce the myopic perception that this happens merely by producing more science and commercializing the result. And third, it lets governments off the hook. If the economy fails to grow and jobs decline in quantity or quality, blame can be cast on the lack of some nebulous ‘culture’ of innovation, rather than on the host of real factors that are much more likely to be directly related to that outcome and that fall much more directly within the competence and responsibility of governments to address.
If we fail to put these elements into perspective, promising experiments like the ISI have little chance of having much impact. Their objectives will become mired once again in actions aimed at achieving some abstract and intractable state of “innovation”, rather than on a concrete, tractable state of prosperity. In short, it is time to stop concerning ourselves with what governments are doing to promote innovation, and focus instead on what they really want to achieve and whether they achieve it. We should start imagining ways of designing policy that is predicated on definable welfare outcomes and on rigorous analysis of all the factors that might lead to it and how, including advances in knowledge and technology.
A ’cluster’ or ‘supercluster’ is never a prerequisite for creating new industry. It is something that you end up with once new industry begins to flourish and starts to create new value-chains, new supply networks and new pools of human capital. Let’s focus our efforts on making sure this can happen. Innovation will follow along soon enough.
17, October, 2017 – BLOG #12
Another way to develop innovation policy?
At a meeting I was at recently, Gandeephan Ganeshalingam, the Chief Innovation Officer for GE Canada, described their view of the business environment using the acronym “VUCA”. This stands for volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous. This is clearly a very challenging environment in which to operate.
Now think about how innovation policy has traditionally been developed. Often there is a commission (such as the Jenkins Report, that studied Federal support for research and development) that studies an issue, and issues a report with recommendation. This is often followed by extensive period of consultation with various stakeholders. Then a policy is announced, sometimes legislation is proposed, and then the policy is implemented. This process often takes many months if not years.
So how likely is it that an innovation policy will work for a company in a VUCA world? Good question!
There is another way to develop innovation policy. In recent years a movement has started (particularly in the UK) to use an experimental approach based on small randomized controlled trials. The approach is straightforward:
- Set up pilots to experiment with new programs. One randomly selected group gets the new program, another randomly selected group doesn’t.
- Evaluate them using rigorous methods.
- Scale up those that work, stop those that don’t work.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been used in a number of policy areas such as development (by the World Bank), education and social policy. They are the gold standard for evaluating new drugs and medical procedures. In all of these areas the link between an intervention and desired outcomes is uncertain because no adequate theory exists. RCT’s provide empirical evidence whether an intervention actually works or not, and provide a strong evidence base for a new policy. As one of the reports says, it replaces reliance on ‘eminence, charisma, and personal experience’ with evidence of what actually works.
RCTs haven’t been used much for developing innovation or entrepreneurship policy, but there is a large potential for exploring its use in those fields.
RCTs, like all new tools, have their strengths and limitations, and require expertise to be used effectively. They won’t be used across the board, just in a few selected areas. A key strength is that they can provide empirical evidence for a new policy, and minimize influences of ideology or history. One weakness is that they don’t explain why an intervention works, only if it does or not.
It is interesting to note that when randomized controlled trials were introduced in medicine, they were strongly opposed by some clinicians, many of whom believed that their personal expert judgement was sufficient to decide whether a particular treatment was effective or not. However randomized controlled trials are now regarded as the gold standard for medical evaluations.
Nesta – a UK charity that supports innovation – has developed an introductory guide for using randomized controlled trials. It is available at http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/running-randomised-controlled-trials-innovation-entrepreneurship-and-growth
Governments at all levels in Canada spend a great deal of money supporting innovation and entrepreneurship. Randomized controlled trials can be another tool in the tool kit to make sure that we get the best possible outcomes. There is very significant expertise in the medical community to draw on to assist this endeavor.
26, September, 2017 – BLOG #11
Entrepreneurship in Alberta
Entrepreneurship is alive and well in Alberta, according to the latest GEM (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor) report, just issued by THECIS. Over 17% of the adult population is engaged in early stage entrepreneurship, a higher rate than in the US, Australia and all other advanced countries. Women are very active in early stage entrepreneurship, at 80% of the men’s rate, also higher than the US.
Consumer services is the most popular field, with just more than 50% of ventures, followed by business oriented services at 30% and manufacturing at 20%. Age is an important determinant of entrepreneurial activity, with higher rates in the 18-24 and 25-34 age groups. Overall, however, about half of new ventures are led by people aged 18-34, and half by those aged 35-64. Above age 65 the rate drops off, but still 4% of older Albertans are active as entrepreneurs.
Education is also a key determinant of entrepreneurship. As people acquire more education they become more entrepreneurial. The highest rate of entrepreneurship is found among those with post graduate education.
The Alberta population is very supportive of entrepreneurship, with 60%–70% of respondents believe that entrepreneurship is a good career choice that successful entrepreneurs have high social status, and that media provide favorable coverage of entrepreneurship.
About 15% of startups are highly innovative, having no direct competitors. About 40% of startups are in sectors with many competitors.
Experts were asked to evaluate the Alberta ecosystem by rating nine relevant factors. The five with the best scores were: physical infrastructure, commercial infrastructure, social and cultural norms, government programs, and government policy at neutral. The lower five in decreasing order were post-secondary education at neutral, R&D transfer (to small and growing firms), internal market dynamics, finance, and primary and secondary education. The experts were also asked to rate to biggest constraints and fostering factors. The most mentioned constraints were finance as the top priority with capacity for entrepreneurship and government policy as next areas of priority.
The most mentioned fostering factors were cultural and social norms as highest priority with the economic climate and, surprisingly, the low rated question of education and training as second and third areas of priority.
The report had five recommendations:
- Creative government programs are needed to support entrepreneurship that has promise to create new directions. This needs to involve all departments of governments, not only those with responsibility for small business.
- School systems need to examine the opportunities to promote entrepreneurial thinking in the context of education aimed at encouraging independence and creativity.
- Despite the evidence that entrepreneurship by women in Alberta is stronger than in other parts of the country or in other developed countries, a gap remains and attitude and motivation data indicate that women still have less confidence in skills and knowledge and women entrepreneurs have more complex motivations. Information programs and mentorship for women remain a priority.
- With the low rate of seniors’ entrepreneurship and the expected increase in size of this demographic in better health in the future, consider targeting entrepreneurship programs at older Albertans.
- Data show rates of entrepreneurship rise with increase of educational experience. Education for entrepreneurial thinking should be promoted across all types of secondary and post-secondary programs.
The full report is available at www.gemcanada.org
GEM Alberta 2016 Report
Entrepreneurship in Alberta- The latest GEM Report
Speaker: Cooper Langford, University of Calgary
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) is the largest study of entrepreneurship in the world. This presentation describes the latest GEM Alberta report and compares entrepreneurship in Alberta with other Canadian provinces and 60 other countries. The report takes a comprehensive look at the aspirations, attitudes and activities of entrepreneurs in Alberta and how Alberta compares with other jurisdictions. The study also identifies some of the strengths and weaknesses of the Alberta innovation system. This is the fourth GEM Report on entrepreneurship in Alberta
Time & Location
Time: 9:00-10:00 am
Date: Thursday October 12th 2017.
Place: Innovate Calgary, 3553 31 Street NW, Calgary, Boardroom 2/3
By Phone: 403-968-3722 or 1-877-877-1055 [toll free anywhere in Alberta]
By Email: Martha@thecis.ca
“The Centre for Elder Research, Sheridan College, Oakville, Ontario is conducting a nation-wide study to help us to learn more about new and established Canadian entrepreneurs age 50+ as well as those individuals 50+ who are actively pursuing a defined business idea. The study is funded by the Canadian Education and Research Institute for Counselling (CERIC).
If you are a Canadian entrepreneur age 50+, you are invited to complete the survey and may do so by clicking on the following link. Please note that the survey is available in both English and French.”
Project List as of January 2017
THECIS took the lead to create a cross Canada team and secure funding for GEM studies in Canada as well as in BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland. This project will produce 20 GEM reports when completed:
- Canada – three reports
- Alberta – three reports
- Ontario – three reports
- Quebec – three reports
- British Columbia – one report
- Saskatchewan – one report
- Manitoba – one report
- Newfoundland – one report
- Nova Scotia – one report
- Atlantic Canada (four provinces) – one report
- Women’s entrepreneurship – one report
- Entrepreneurship at the university of Calgary – one report
Nanotechnology Road Map implementation project, starting summer 2012
A best practice for developing road maps is to spend the time necessary once the road map is completed taking it to all the main stakeholders and interest groups to secure their understanding and buy in for the Road Map.
Nanotechnology Roadmapping project, 2011-2012
Following on from the previous project, nanoAlberta has asked us to develop road maps for the most promising applications for nanotechnology in Alberta. This involves a collaborative effort among all the stakeholders, in industry, government, university and NGOs.
Impact of nanotechnology in Alberta, 2010/2011
NanoAlberta asked us to identify the major applications for nanotechnology likely to have commercial impact by 2020 and to develop a road map and action plan for realizing the benefits to Alberta.
InnoWest 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010
InnoWest is the western Canadian Innovation Conference. THECIS has organised this event since 2004, and it has become an annual event, with steadily increasing attendance from across western Canada and beyond.
Science to Society Workshop 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010
This event is organised to provide business information to 50- 70 graduate students in science, engineering ICT, health and agriculture. It takes place at a weekend on October in Banff. Support has come from iCORE, Alberta Ingenuity, AHFMR, the Alberta Agricultural Research Institute, NSERC Prairies and the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
This project, carried out for Alberta Ingenuity, is to develop and deliver a learning experience to graduate students in Alberta to acquaint them with the basics of business concepts and give them experience working on a business related project in a multidisciplinary environment. The delivery of the Course in the Fall of 2007 is supported by the CRTCAC [Calgary Regional Technology Commercialization Advisory Committee] and in 2010 by Alberta Innovates – Technology Futures.
Health Research Translation Project, 2009
This course is modelled on Ingenuity 601 but targeted at graduate students in medical, health and biosciences and related fields such as medicine, nursing, rehabilitation, life sciences and biomedical engineering. The course is supported by CRTCAC [Calgary Regional Technology Commercialization Advisory Committee and AHFMR
The theme of the second Banff Innovation Summit was “The resource industries as engines of economic diversification”. The Summit took place in September, with about 30 senior individuals from industry, government and university from the four western provinces. The Summit was supported by Western Economic Diversification, the Alberta government, iCORE and NSERC Prairies.
Pathways Project, 2008
Industry Canada asked us to review the various pathways that knowledge travels from university to business in Canada, and provide examples of each type of pathway identified.
International Comparison Review, 2008
This project developed an analysis of the policies being pursued in different countries to encourage industry-university collaboration; assessed the various strengths and weaknesses of various national approached; provided a critical assessment of the organizational structures of universities that underpin university-industry collaboration; and identified best practices and principles. This was for Industry Canada.
ICT Sector Performance in Alberta, 2007/2008
This project, supported by Alberta Advanced Education and Technology, is a follow on from the Alberta Innovation Scorecard project. It aims to answer two questions: How is the ICT sector performing in Alberta? How is the government doing supporting the sector?
Foresight Scoping Workshop, 2007
This was a foresight exercise to identify applications that may emerge from the convergence of nano-technology, biotechnology and ICT. It is initiated by the Office of the National Science Advisor and supported by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat and CMC Microsystems.
University Business Collaboration, 2007
This project is a critical review of the literature on how university researchers collaborate with industrial firms, and how those relationships can result in commercial products. Supported by Industry Canada.
Interprovincial Trade in the Oil and Gas Industry, 2007
The Standards Council of Canada asked us to carry out a project to determine if there were any barriers to interprovincial trade in the oil and gs industry that were caused by standardisation factors.
What can we learn from clusters? 2007
This project, for the Alberta ICT Council, aims to identify learnings from the ISRN [Innovation Systems Research Network] research on ICT clusters across Canada which are relevant to the Alberta ICT sector.
Saskatchewan Innovation Scorecard 2006
The Saskatchewan Innovation Scorecard project was funded by the Saskatchewan government, Western Economic Diversification and NRC-IRAP. It aims to portray the state of innovation in Saskatchewan and compare it with benchmark jurisdictions.
The goal of turning Western Canada into a dynamic, diversified and internationally competitive knowledge-based economy must be supported with policies and strategies that take account of both leading-edge ideas and local knowledge about how to assess and improve innovation performance.
The Banff Innovation Summit brought together 30-40 carefully selected industry, policy and academic stakeholders in economic diversification and innovation will interact with an elite international group of experts who are producing leading-edge ideas and knowledge concerning innovation policy and strategy. A speaker from the OECD in Paris provides the keynote address. The Summit was funded by a number of organisations, including the Governments of Canada, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC, and the University of Calgary.
Feasibility Study for a Seraphim Fund and Virtual Angel Support System for Western Canada 2006
One of the problems holding back innovation in western Canada is the shortage of early stage funding. This project addressed that problem by carrying out a feasibility study for a new form of virtual angel network. The project was funded by NRC-IRAP.
Alberta Technology Report 2006
THECIS partnered with Ernst and Young and Ipsos Reid to prepare the 2006 edition of the Alberta Technology Report. The project was funded by Alberta Innovation and Science, Western Economic Diversification xxx. It involved a survey of CEOs of high tech firms to identify the state of the sector.
University Research Park Vision and Conceptual Masterplan, 2005
THECIS worked with a consortium of firms of architects to develop a Vision and Conceptual master plan for the rejuvenation of the University Research Park. This was done for Calgary Technologies, the University of Calgary and Alberta Infrastructure.
Alberta Innovation Scorecard 2005
The Alberta Innovation Scorecard was a direct follow up to the earlier project on developing new economic measures for Alberta. The Alberta Innovation Scorecard was developed using a consultation process with a team from the project sponsors [Western Economic Diversification, Alberta Innovation and Science, and NRC-IRAP]. The Scorecard was released publicly and is available on the THECIS web site.
This project was funded by a private Calgary based Foundation. It was a year long study of the health industry in Alberta, to identify the main characteristics of the industry and celebrate its successes. The results of this work were disseminated across Alberta by a series of workshops in major centres organised by THECIS.
Innovation System data Initiative 2005/2006
Policy makers often need better and more timely information than is currently available from Statistics Canada. This project – supported by Alberta Innovation and Science, Western Economic Diversification and NRC-IRAP – addressed this need by sending a graduate student to Ottawa and supervising him to obtain information of value to the project sponsors.
Calgary Innovation Clinic 2004
Industry Canada and Western Economic Diversification asked THECIS to organise an Innovation Clinic in Calgary. This involved having two high tech CEOs being interviewed before a live audience to describe the factors leading to their success. The interviews were recorded and have been made available across Canada in DVD format by Industry Canada.
Return to Community – the Impact of the University of Calgary on its Community. 2004
The University of Calgary asked THECIS to prepare a report showing the impact the University has on the community. This report was subsequently used in discussions at the university Senate and by other bodies.
Feasibility Study for a wet lab facility at the Edmonton Research Park
THECIS was asked to join a consortium of architect firms to prepare a feasibility study for this facility. The main THECIS role related to developing the business case for the facility. Subsequently the facility was approved and is under construction.
Annotated Bibliography: Innovation in the Prairie Provinces 2003
Industry Canada in Saskatoon asked THECIS to prepare an annotated bibliography of papers written about innovation in the prairie provinces.
External Technology Audit of AACI Program, 2003
The Alberta Energy Research Institute asked THECIS to carry out an external audit of one of their major technology programs to determine how effective they were.
New Economic Measures for Alberta 2003
This major project for Alberta Economic Development was to develop a set of metrics to measure the effectiveness of the Provinces new economic development plan. It involved participation of members from several different Alberta ministries.
Briefing Paper for a conference on Receptor Capacity 2003
Calgary Technologies asked THECIS to prepare a briefing paper relating to a Canadian conference on receptor capacity held in Toronto.
Paper on Industrial Research, 2002
This project, for Alberta Innovation and Science, was to prepare a paper for discussion at the Ministers of Science and Technology from across Canada.
THECIS is funded on a project basis by a variety of organizations. Since 2001 the following have provided financial support through contracts or grants:
Federal Government Departments and Agencies
- Western Economic Diversification Canada;
- ACOA (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency);
- Industry Canada – Ottawa;
- Industry Canada – Saskatoon office;
- Office of the National Science Advisor [ONSA];
- ISED (Innovation Science and Economic Development Canada;
- Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat;
- Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada;
- Standards Council of Canada;
- National Institute of Nanotechnology [NINT];
- National Research Council –Industrial Research Assistance Program [NRC-IRAP];
- Federal Partners in Technology Transfer [FPTT];
- Business Development Bank of Canada; National Science and Engineering Research Council – Prairies Region;
- International Development Research Centre [IDRC]
Provincial Government Departments and Agencies
- Alberta Economic Development;
- Alberta Innovates – Technology Futures;
- Alberta Finance and Enterprise;
- Alberta Innovation and Science;
- Advanced Education and Technology;
- Alberta Sustainable Resource Development;
- Informatics Circle of Research Excellence [iCORE];
- Alberta Agricultural Research Institute; Alberta Innovates – Health Solutions;
- Alberta Energy Research Institute;
- Alberta Research Council;
- Alberta Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Development [AAFRD];
- British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education;
- Saskatchewan Industry and Resources;
- Enterprise Saskatchewan;
- Manitoba Science, Technology, Energy and Mines;
- Government of Newfoundland and Labrador;
- Government of Ontario;
- Innovation Saskatchewan
- International Health Business Opportunities Conference Foundation
- Alberta Ingenuity Fund;
- Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research [AHFMR]
- Canadian Youth Business Foundation [CYBF];
- Futurpreneur Canada
- Calgary Technologies Inc.;
- University of Calgary;
- Ryerson University
- TEC Edmonton;
- The Evidence Network;
- University of Alberta, Faculty of Extension
- AVAC Ltd. Alberta Chamber of Resources;
- Genome Prairie; Genome Alberta;
- CMC Microsystems;
- Pfizer Inc., Nexen Inc.;
- Merck Frosst Canada Ltd.;
- Ernst and Young LLP;
- Alberta Treasury Branches;
- Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta
- Certified Management Accountants of Alberta;
- Calgary Regional Technology Commercialization Advisory Committee [CRTCAC]
- APEGGA Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta;
- Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta
- University of Manitoba, Stu Clark Centre for Entrepreneurship
THECIS has established a network of experts, called THECIS Fellows, to support the work of the Centre. Current members:
Senior Fellow. Richard Hawkins, BA, MA (Simon Fraser), D.Phil. (Sussex)
Richard is a political economist specializing in science, technology and innovation policy and strategy. Currently he is Professor and Canada Research Chair (Tier 1) in Science and Technology Policy in the Science, Technology and Society and Society at the University of Calgary. Prior to this, he was Leader of the Network Economy Programme and later Senior Advisor to the Science, Technology and Innovation Programme at the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research TNO, one of Europe’s largest contract research laboratories. Previous to this, he was Senior Fellow in the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex. Before turning his attention to academic and applied research activities he was active professionally in the international music industry.
Adam Holbrook, P. Eng.
Adam is an adjunct professor and Associate Director at the Centre for Policy Research on Science and Technology (CPROST), at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, BC. Before joining CPROST in 1995 he was a career civil servant in the federal government of Canada involved in S&T policy issues at the Treasury Board Secretariat and Industry Canada. At CPROST his research activities have centered on the analysis of science, technology and innovative activities in both the public sector and the private sector. He is the leader of a network of researchers in innovation studies in western Canada, and recently edited a book on regional innovation systems in Canada – “Innovation, Institutions and Territory: Regional Innovation Systems in Canada” .
Alex Bruton, PhD, P.Eng. MBA
Entrepreneur and educator with 14 years of experience and a passion for innovation and entrepreneurship. Loves teaching and public speaking, and has presented to audiences ranging in size from five to 500 people on over 40 occasions in six countries. Currently leads the development of a university program that provides an entrepreneurial training ground and launch pad for creative 17-30 year old entrepreneurs in all disciplines, and was Vice President at a technology start-up. Brings excellent leadership and people-skills, a strong technical background and experience that includes: strategy development; business model design; business and product planning; facilitation; marketing research; and industry and competitive analyses. Has published 21 papers in the public domain and 19 proprietary technical, concept-of-operations and business reports. Has had his research supported by NSERC on three occasions and by other awards on nine occasions. Co-founded the Innovation Department for a Canadian advanced technology company, has experience in product and project management, and has recruited and developed early-stage teams. Has won and been nominated for several awards for best and most innovative teaching. Recently gave an invited talk at Google Waterloo on “Creating Really Big Value” through entrepreneurship education (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX2Zht4GJ1c).
Arvid Hardin, B.Sc., Ph.D.
Arvid is Principal of Hardin Associates Technology Management, a privately held business providing international management consulting services, economic and investment development, business strategy development, technology strategy and management. Before that he worked in senior positions in the international petrochemical and energy industries, and in government agencies. Previously he was Assistant Director, Energy R&D, for the Canadian national Energy Program
Bob is founder and CEO of Vector RDI Ltd., a research, development, and innovation consultancy based in Alberta, Canada. He holds an earned Ph.D from the University of Calgary exploring architectures of innovation and the philosophy of science. Bob serves as a peer reviewer for the journal She Ji < https://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/>, is an Approved Service Provider for Tecterra < http://www.tecterra.com >, and also serves on the board of the Guided Autobiography Program out of the Birren Center for Autobiographical Studies at the University of Southern California < http://guidedautobiography.com >. As co-founding Deputy Director, he established the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics at the University of Calgary as a successful advanced biological research facility. He was also Business Development Officer for the Institute for Space Imaging Science at the University of Calgary, shaping business networks with SMEs and global industry. He negotiated the highest level of funding from CANARIE (Canadian funding agency) for the Canadian “Cyber-SKA” program of the global Square Kilometer Array (SKA) Project, and served as the Canadian global industry engagement strategist for the international SKA Development Program. Bob has served as a successful educator, administrator, manager, strategist and writer for more than 30 years. He has managed and delivered entire university transfer management programs, successfully served as an education authority CEO, and created and taught unique courses in astronomy, robotics and visual language. Bob has enjoyed provincial and national secondments and completed the Aspen Institute’s Executive Leadership Program. He also served in the Faculties of Continuing Education and Engineering at the University of Calgary as an instructor and program and course designer. Bob has authored and presented articles in IEEE and European, Australian and Asian academic, business and military venues. These have addressed the enhancement of critical thinking and conceptual skills in relation to technological innovation and societal change. Bob has published one book on innovation and philosophy, is writing more, and continues independent research in these fields
Brian Wixted, B Admin, Grad Dip App Sci., Ph.D.
Brian is a Visiting Fellow with CPROST at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver and the founder of Technomics Research. He has degrees in commerce and a Graduate Diploma of Applied Science. During his employment with the Australian Commonwealth Public Service he worked on science, technology and innovation indicators analysis (1989-1995) and agricultural and resources science and innovation policy (1995-2000). Between 2000 and 2004, Brian was with the AEGIS research centre at the University of Western Sydney, where he was principally responsible for its data analysis of innovation related issues. In 2005 he completed his doctorate, which examined the international linkages between industrial clusters.
Bruno Silvestre B. Eng., M. Eng., D.Phil
Bruno is an industrial engineer specializing in technology and innovation management, strategy and cluster dynamics. He has more than 10 years of direct managerial experience in the energy sector (including oil and gas and electricity) and other resource based sectors. More recently, he worked for a research park and firm incubator involved in a number of high tech start-up projects. Currently, he is Adjunct Professor and Research Associate with the faculty of Business Administration and the Centre for Policy Research on Science and Technology (CPROST) at Simon Fraser University, and Business Development Executive at ELECTROBRAS, the major Brazilian National Electricak Utility.
Chad Saunders, MBA, Ph.D.
Chad is an Assistant Professor at the Haskayne School of Business in the area of Management Information Systems and holds a cross-appointment with the Faculty of Medicine’s Department of Community Health Sciences where he is the Research and Innovation lead with the Health Innovation and Information Technology Centre (HiiTeC). Chad’s research interests focus on the impact of information technology on professional practice. In particular, this work considers the implications for design and innovation within a professional environment and the key entrepreneurial activities associated with the use of technology within the professional contexts. His professional experience includes technology benchmarking, commercialization and the strategic deployment of technology to support collaborative research. Chad has published in leading journals including Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Venturing, IEEE TRansactions on Software Engineering and the Ivey Business Journal.
Charles Davis Ph.D.
Charles is the Edward S. Rogers Sr. Research Chair in Media Management and Entrepreneurship, and Associate Dean, Scholarly Research and Creative Activities, Faculty of Communication & Design at Ryerson University in Toronto. I currently teach and conduct research on innovation management and policy. His research interests have to do with product innovation, media audiences, customer value and experiential consumption of media products, innovation in digital experience goods, and labour and entrepreneurial startups in creative industries.
Cooper Langford, Ph.D., FRS(Can.)
Cooper is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Calgary and Director of the Science, Technology and Society Program at the University. He is a former Vice-President (Research) at U of C and a former Director of Physical and Mathematical Sciences at NSERC. He has published on university/industry/government relations, strategic research funding, evaluation of the outcomes of university research, Canadian participation in megascience, and knowledge flows. His current research includes study of regional clusters in innovation.
Denzil Doyle, C.M., B.Sc., D.Eng.,F.E.I.C.
Denzil is Chairman of Doyletech Corporation, an Ottawa-based company specializing in providing consulting services to entrepreneurs, investors, policy makers, and economic development authorities. Although trained as an engineer, he has spent most of his career in the business world. From 1963 to 1981, he directed the affairs of Digital Equipment Canada, growing it to annual sales in excess of $160 million.
He formed Doyletech Corporation in 1982, and provided services to all provincial and the federal government. In 1982, he also co-founded Instantel Inc. an Ottawa based supplier of electronic instrumentation.
From 1995 to 2005 he served as Chairman of Alliance Capital ventures Inc. an Ottawa based venture capital firm. He is the author of several business articles and books.
In 2005 he was invested as a Member of the Order of Canada.
Don is an independent consultant based in Ottawa, Canada. His consulting projects typically involve research, analysis and policy development on economic, social and governance issues related to telecommunications, the Internet and ICTs. From 1992-99, he headed the Strategic Planning and External Affairs Unit of the International Telecommunication Union in Geneva, Switzerland. Prior to joining the ITU, he served in a number of senior policy and planning posts in the former Canadian Department of Communications. Mr. MacLean has a B.A. in Economics and Political Science from McGill University and did graduate studies at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques (Paris) and Princeton.
Éric Archambault, D.Phil.
Éric is President of Science-Metrix, a Canadian consultancy that specializes in the measurement and evaluation of science- and technology-related activities. His core function in the company is to analyze and formulate science, technology and innovation policy and strategy. He also teaches quantitative methods (scientometrics and technometrics) to students in the Science, Technology and Society program at the Université du Québec à Montréal and is an associate researcher at the Observatoire des sciences et des technologies as well as at the Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie. He has research expertise in the following areas: health science and technology, information and communication technology, energy and transport.
Geoff Gregson, LLM, MBA, Ph.D.
Geoff is the JR Shaw Research Chair in New Venture and Entrepreneurship at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT) in Edmonton, AB and is Associate Dean, Research in the JR Shaw School of Business. He holds PhD in Management, LLM in Intellectual Property Law and MSc in Social Science from the University of Edinburgh (UK), MBA from the Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary and BPE from the University of Alberta. Geoff has led projects funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), British Academy, Technology Strategy Board, Scottish Executive, Marie Curie (European Commission) and Santander Bank.
His areas of research cover entrepreneurship, technology commercialization, SME growth, innovation (strategy, systems, policy and evaluation) and equity risk capital. Geoff holds a number of external appointments that include Canadian ambassador for the Regional Studies Association (RSA) and Visiting Researcher with the Institute for the Study of Science, Technology & Innovation (ISSTI) at the University of Edinburgh. Prior to joining NAIT, he was a director of the Centre for Entrepreneurship Research at the University of Edinburgh.
Ian McCarthy, B.Eng., M.Sc., Ph.D.
Ian is currently Canada Research Chair in Management of Technology at the Faculty of Business, Simon Fraser University in Vancouver. His academic career began in engineering where he researched and taught engineering management and operations systems design. Since completing his PhD he has concentrated on understanding the various operational and technological configurations (practices, processes and structures) that exists in different types of industrial organizations. This has included research on managing operational complexity, mass customization, decision making in new product development, and strategies for drug discovery.
Gordon A. Gow Ph.D.
Gordon is Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Extension at the University of Alberta. From 2003-2006 he was a Lecturer in the Department of Media and Communications at the London School of Economics and Political, where he was Director of the Graduate Programme in Media and Communications Regulation and Policy. Gordon’s research looks at the development of electronic communications networks from a combined social and technical perspective, with the aim of promoting innovation through expanded public understanding of and participation in policymaking. His primary focus is with the long term planning and management of critical infrastructure systems, especially those that support public alerting and emergency management activities. He is currently involved in the development and testing of an all-hazards warning system in Sri Lanka, in addition to having published reports for the Canadian government on tsunami warning and emergency communications. His wider research interests include innovation in mobile voice and data systems, especially with respect to regulatory concerns such as spectrum policy and management, telecom reform, technical standardization, and public safety.
Jacek Warda, M.A. Economics, D.P.A.
Since 2003 Jacek has been President and Founder of JPW Innovation Associates Inc, a research and advisory practice specializing in science and technology policy. He is a internationally recognized expert on the R&D tax treatment and consultant to the OECD. His expertise also includes benchmarking of innovation systems and evaluating collaboration of the private sector with universities and government research laboratories. He is a former Principal Research Associate with the Innovation and Technology program and Manager, Innovation Council at The Conference Board of Canada. He resides in Ottawa.
Jeremy Hall, D.Phil.
Jeremy is an Associate Professor at the School of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver. who specializes in technology and innovation management, corporate strategy and strategies for sustainable development.
Jerry Lemmon, B.Sc., P.Biol.P.Ag.
Jerry is the President of Razorquest inc., consulting to organizations focused on growth and increasing their position in today’s competitive marketplace. Razorquest services include investor readiness, growth strategy, executive mentorship and organizational transformation. Mr. Lemmon has a diversified background, consulting to corporations on executive management and corporate leadership as a Director at the Banff Centre for Management. He has also held the position of Director, Advanced Technology Centre for The University College of the Cariboo where his main focus was business incubation, and evaluating technology and its commercial viability. Prior to accepting his role at The Banff Centre, Mr. Lemmon was a Marketing Manager with Monsanto Canada Inc. Mr. Lemmon is also a Fellow with THECIS (The Centre for Innovation Studies), where he contributes regularly to the advancement of innovation and technology commercialization in Alberta.
Les Bowd, MBA, DBA
Les has held senior positions in the public and private sector, including Assistant Deputy Minister of Agriculture for Saskatchewan and Director of Strategic Change/Planning for Agrium Inc. As Director, Executive Development at the Calgary Centre for Executive Education, Faculty of Management, University of Calgary his current research focuses on the strategic roles of middle managers.
Lloyd is a professor in Strategic Management & Organization at the University of Alberta School of Business. He is also Academic Director for the Centre for Entrepreneurship and Family Enterprise. His research interests include new venture creation, technology commercialization, venture capital finance and family enterprise.
Marc Godin, P.Eng., MBA.
Marc has 25 years of technical and business development experience in the chemicals and energy industries and consults for corporate and government clients.
Martha Burkle, Ph.D.
Martha is the CISCO Research Chair in e-learning at SAIT Polytechnic. A pioneer in the research field of the use of technologies for development, her research work examines the use of technologies in the knowledge economy. After completing her PhD on Technology Policies and Higher Education at the University of Sussex, Dr. Burkle moved to Mexico where she was Associate Professor at the Monterrey Institute of Technologies University. In 2006 she moved to Calgary and assumed the CISCO Research Chair position at SAIT, where she has been doing research on the impact of information technologies in teaching and learning. Her research interests include the use of mobile technologies in just in time training, the use of Second Life to facilitate hands on learning, and students e-readiness in Canada. She is Board member for a number of higher education institutions and editorial boards, and author of a number of research papers, case studies and research reports and has presented her research at conferences around the world.
Michael Lounsbury, Ph.D.
Michael is Associate Professor in the School of Business at the University of Alberta. Professor Lounsbury’s research has a general focus on the relationship between organizational and institutional change, technological and entrepreneurial dynamics, and the emergence of new industries and practices. He studies topics such as technology, entrepreneurship and professionalism in varied contexts such as the fields of technology transfer, solid waste, and finance. As a research officer at the Canadian National Institute for Nanotechnology, he is currently investigating the co-evolution of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Professor Lounsbury serves on a number of editorial boards and his work has been published in top tier peer-reviewed journals such as Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Strategic Management Journal, and Organization Studies. In addition, he is the series editor of Research in the Sociology of Organizations published by JAI/Elsevier and co-executive editor of Journal of Management Inquiry published by Sage. At the University of Alberta, he is the Coordinator of the Technology Commercialization Specialization and Director of the Technology Commercialization Centre (TCC).
Murray Wolfe, B.Comm., C.A.
Murray is Director of Internal Audit at Fortis Alberta. He specializes in the design and implementation of effective risk, internal control and governance practices.
Paul is President of VisionGain Consulting. Prior to this he was Vice-President, Research and Technology at NOVA Chemicals, with a diverse career in the chemical industry in Canada and the United States. He is also a Board Member of ASRA [Alberta Research and Technology Authority] and the National Research Council of Canada and Chair of the ASRA Task Force on Sustainability/Capacity to Innovate, and a Member of the Judging Panel, Alberta Science and Technology [ASTech Awards] Awards. He has also held positions as Chair of the Canadian Plastics Industry Association [CPIA]; Chair of the Innovation Management Association of Canada [IMAC]; Member, University of Waterloo Advisory Council; Member, Engineering Associates Committee, University of Calgary.
Patrick Feng, B.Arts Sci, M.S.,Ph.D.
Patrick was an assistant professor in the Faculty of Communication and Culture at the University of Calgary. Prior to moving to Calgary he held a postdoctoral fellow in the School of Communication Simon Fraser University. His research focuses on the social implications of new technologies, and in particular on the politics of designing and implementing technical standards. He has investigated the work of international standards organizations in developing scientific and technical standards for information technologies and health technologies. He also done work in the area of science and technology policy, and is particularly interested in how ordinary citizens at could be better represented in scientific and technological policy-making.
Peter Josty, Ph.D., M.B.A.
Peter has more than 25 years industrial experience in research, marketing, technical management, new application development, new business development and strategic planning. He is Executive Director of THECIS.
Peter W.B. Phillips, Ph.D.
Peter is a Professor and NSERC/SSHRC Chair in managing Knowledge-based Agri-food Development at the University of Saskatchewan. His research concentrates on intellectual property management for agricultural biotechnology, trade and marketing issues relating to GM foods and development strategies. He is also Director of the U. of S. College of Biotechnology, a member of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, senior research associate with the Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade and co-principle investigator for Genome Prairie’s $3.3 million, 4 -year Genomics, Ethics, law and Society Project.
Rob is currently the founder and President od Ellipsis Ventures, a management consulting firm that specializes in technology commercialization in the ICT, CleanTech and healthcare sectors. As part of his practice, Rob holds the position of Director of the EnviroTech Solutions program at ClimateChange Central.
Rob’s passion for entrepreneurship and developing new business is evident in his previous roles. In addition to founding Ellipsis Ventures and Stratavera Partners, he is also helping to start a few early stage technology firms. In the past, Rob has served as Vice-President, Operations with Calgary Technologies inc. and has worked with TransCanada in various technology development roles.
Rob is a Professional Engineer with a civil engineering degree and an MBA from Queens University as well as a Masters in Environmental Design from the University of Calgary.
Scott Tiffin, Ph.D.
Scott is an expert on the management of innovation and entrepreneurship in clusters and strategy for knowledge-based organizations working in international markets. He has experience with consulting, university research and teaching, postdoctoral mentoring, international research consortia, government policy and the setting up of entrepreneurial firms, in a variety of settings including Canada, the US, Europe, Middle East, Africa and Latin America. Originally an engineer, and then with a brief period in environmental science, his doctorate is in technology management and policy, from Université de Montréal.
Stelvia Matos, B. Eng. Chemical Engineering, M. Eng. and DPhil. Civil Engineering (University of São Paulo- Brazil)
Stelvia is a Research Associate in the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy (ISEEE) and in the faculty of Communication and Culture, University of Calgary. She also holds a Post-doctoral Research Fellowship of the International Institute for Resource Industries and Sustainability Studies (IRIS) at the Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary. Her research interests include sustainable development innovation, information and communication technologies in rural areas, environment management tools, life cycle assessment, risk analysis and social aspects of innovation dynamics. She has conducted research in the agriculture, aquaculture, chemical, energy, forestry and tourism sectors, with field studies performed in Brazil, Bosnia, Canada, China, Italy, the Netherlands, the UK, and the US.
Sylvan Katz, Ph.D.
Sylvan is a consultant in Saskatoon (Katz Competitive Intelligence Ltd.) and a Senior Research Fellow at SPRU, University of Sussex, UK. (http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/jskatz) His research focuses on scale-dependent and scale-independent science, technology and innovation indicators, technical competitive intelligence, foresight and self-organizing innovation activities. Currently he is working with a consortium of researchers from four European universities to develop web-based indicators of science, technology and innovation research (http://www.webindicators.org)
Tony Briggs, DBA., MBA, MS
Anthony is an Assistant Professor in the Strategic Management and Organization Department at the Alberta School of Business. Tony holds a Doctor of Business Administration in Information Systems from Boston University’s Graduate School of Management where he studied how some of the world’s top technology entrepreneurs identify and develop breakthrough innovations. Prior to his doctorate, Tony received an M.S. from MIT Sloan, where he researched the impact of patent constraints on innovation, and also assisted in the design of the Intellectual Property Owners Association and the Licensing Executives Society surveys. He also holds an MBA in Finance from University of British Columbia, and a B.Sc. Hons. in Biochemistry from the University of Alberta.
Tony was a patent licensing officer in Canada and the US, most recently at Harvard Medical School, and has consulted with numerous U.S. SBIR grant companies on patent licensing and technology strategy. His research examines how highly novel information is shared and assessed in uncertain environments. He conducts related work on problems of uncertain property rights and patents.